Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

— SECTION FOUR — PAST PROPOSALS, AND THE MANY CALLS FOR REFORM Decades of Ideas Our articulation of the court reform issue is, of course, not new. For many generations, commissions such as ours, as well as legislative panels and other groups, have decried the structure of the New York courts, and have proposed a remarkably consistent slate of potential reforms. These include proposals from the Tweed <strong>Commission</strong> in the 1950s; the Dominick and Vance <strong>Commission</strong>s in the 1970s; a legislative plan that received first passage in the Legislature in 1986; and a comprehensive reform package proposed by Chief Judge Kaye in 1997 that received resounding support throughout the state. While these proposals differed in their details, all identified the same problems and, in broad strokes, proposed the same solutions: a consolidation of the trial courts and the addition of an appellate department. Yet, after all this time, the structure of the New York State courts remains largely unchanged. We have studied these past reform efforts and they have informed our analysis of the current system and our recommendations. The most significant of these efforts are examined briefly in this section. “It is our profound hope that after decades of proposals, the time has finally come to end the waste and inefficiency generated by the New York courts’ outmoded and fragmented trial-court structure.” – Westchester County Association, January 2007 We observe at the outset that the failure to achieve reform over the last fifty years does not, in our view, reflect a lack of popular support or some substantive deficiency in past recommendations. Rather, we believe that prior efforts failed due to lack of political will and the necessary momentum – a will and momentum that we believe can and should now be developed throughout our state. A Court System for the Future, February 2007 49
The Tweed <strong>Commission</strong> (1955 – 1958) The <strong>Commission</strong> “found that diverse problems such as calendar congestion and delay, complexities of practice and procedure, inadequate handling of youth, children and the family in the courts and lack of proper adminitrative practices were all either the results of, or aggravated by, the fragmentation of jurisdiction among many courts and the almost complete lack of mechanisms for coordinating the efforts of the various parts of the judicial system toward the effective administration of justice.” – Tweed <strong>Commission</strong> (1955) Perhaps the most influential group to have studied our court system was the Temporary <strong>Commission</strong> on the Courts, which was established in 1953 by the New York State Legislature. 73 Between 1955 and 1958, this group, popularly known as the “Tweed <strong>Commission</strong>” for its chair Harrison Tweed, issued four reports calling for a series of reforms, with consolidation of the state’s trial court system as its centerpiece. In June 1955, the Tweed <strong>Commission</strong>’s Subcommittee on Modernization and Simplification of the Court Structure proposed a complete reorganization of the state’s court system. 74 The plan would have consolidated the court system’s twenty existing courts into five, and contained the following key elements: • The Court of Appeals would become the Appeals Court of Last Resort, with seven judges elected statewide to fourteen-year terms. 75 • The Appellate Court would succeed the Appellate Division in hearing appeals from trial courts, and would be organized in the existing four-department structure and staffed by elected trial court judges appointed to the Appellate Court by the Governor. 76 • The Superior Court would be established as a trial court of unlimited jurisdiction for all civil and criminal cases, replacing the existing Supreme Court, the Court of Claims, and other lower courts; its judges would be elected to fourteen-year terms. 77 There would be at least one Superior Court judge sitting in every county. 78 • The District Court would serve as the trial court for misdemeanors, small civil cases, and landlord-tenant dis- 73 L. 1953, c. 591. at 1-12. 74 See APROPOSED SIMPLIFIED STATE-WIDE COURT SYSTEM, supra note 4, 75 See id. at 2. 76 See id. 77 See id. at 3-5. 78 See id. at 3. 50 A Court System for the Future, February 2007
Page 1 and 2: ACOURT SYSTEM FOR THE FUTURE: THE P
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On July 17, 2006,
Page 5 and 6: A. Vincent Buzard Partner, Harris B
Page 7 and 8: Counsel to the Commission</
Page 9 and 10: More fundamentally, the fragmented
Page 11 and 12: “New York has the most complex an
Page 13 and 14: “For 30 years, New York’s trial
Page 15 and 16: — SECTION ONE — THE CURRENT STR
Page 17 and 18: system grew exponentially. By the t
Page 19 and 20: issue from the Supreme Court or a c
Page 21 and 22: igation, family-related matters or
Page 23 and 24: Article VI of the New York State Co
Page 25 and 26: The Appellate Division was establis
Page 27 and 28: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
Page 29 and 30: state Constitution on November 4, 1
Page 31 and 32: jurisdiction would become Superior
Page 33 and 34: In short, when it comes to the stru
Page 35 and 36: Given this reality, it is in the in
Page 37 and 38: The following is the testimonial of
Page 39 and 40: “Notwithstanding the results of t
Page 41 and 42: for by HRA) because my welfare bene
Page 43 and 44: husband told the judge that I was a
Page 45 and 46: Costs to Individuals, Businesses, M
Page 47: appear as witnesses), or to family
Page 51 and 52: Court upstate as well as the transf
Page 53 and 54: y the Legislature and were approved
Page 55 and 56: proposed a concurrent resolution to
Page 57 and 58: efforts), make the case for reform
Page 59 and 60: Groups representing the indigent al
Page 61 and 62: Commercial Division of the New York
Page 63 and 64: safety and facilitate access to spe
Page 65 and 66: Courts in Hempstead and Syracuse al
Page 67 and 68: The details of our proposal are ref
Page 69 and 70: continue to handle such matters whi
Page 71 and 72: We recognize that some have express
Page 73 and 74: The diagram below outlines the stru
Page 75 and 76: Under a “merger in place” plan,
Page 77 and 78: Judicial District. By contrast, jud
Page 79 and 80: Today, the Housing Court, as this P
Page 81 and 82: The issues concerning the Justice C
Page 83 and 84: five years. 158 Therefore, it is no
Page 85 and 86: of preservation. The use of citatio
Page 87 and 88: CURRENT STRUCTURE Court of Appeals
Page 89 and 90: JSC status, thereby increasing the
Page 91 and 92: significant authority over our stat
Page 93 and 94: The Supposed Ease of an Administrat
Page 95 and 96: Supreme Court Justices hear every y
Page 97 and 98: a restructuring have already been c
Page 99:
the constitutional amendment is pas
show all

Special Commission on the Future of the New York State Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?